Should the next AU course come before or after a patch?

[Catt]

I agree with DrSpike that both the corruption and GPT issues are clear bugs and will be fixed. I think its possible, though unlikely, that the RCP aspect of the corruption bugs wouldn't be "fixed" -- one could argue that it is working exactly as intended by the designers, even if many players think it a silly "fix" to penalize equidistant city placement, whether deliberate or inadvertant by the player -- but the FP / city rank issue must clearly be a bug (and I personally expect a new RCP fix implementation).

The challenging aspect of testing anything under present circumstances, IMHO, is that we don't have a grasp of how the AI benefits or suffers due to the bugs. If we were playing no-AI MP games, the bugs would be much less a hindrance to developing views on the game. As it is, I find myself struggling to understand their effects in an SP game with any confidence. I am finding the game a bit easier in present form, even when refusing to enter into any GPT deals -- later game research takes longer, in absolute terms, but a late game lead is still a commanding position. As just one example of an unexplained tangible result from gameplay changes, are the AIs performing less effectively in the early game? If yes, is this due to corruption issues, or due to the delays in map and contact trading, or due to the changes to Republic, or due to a de-emphasis on Literature, or something else (or a combination)? I don't know -- more importantly, I don't think anyone else can know with any certainty, either. Which means I cannot exlcude (nor do I believe can others) that the buggy aspects of the current game have a material effect on AI performance, even when specific AI civs in any given game have no contact with the human player.

Catt

[Jawa Jocky]

I voted to wait.

However, I wouldn't refuse to take the next course

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Who would be interested in playing an Agr. game? I can post an interesting one tonight. The purpose would be to test a different version of the Chasqui Scout: 0/0/1, 20 Shields, All Terrain As Roads, replaces Scout (available from the start). Sound fun?

To restate and maybe expand a little on why I don't want to play the Seafaring game now, most of our AU games are on Continents maps with relatively "normal" land characteristics. Games with an emphasis on naval operations (especially ones designed up front to be that way) are relatively rare, and I hate to see one of the few AU games played under such conditions "spoiled" by corrupted rules. Further, if there's one kind of game that the FP bug seems especially likely to ruin, it's a heavily naval-oriented game, because getting a second core going on another land mass is so important on 'pelago maps.

That said, I would be very interested in a comparison game under the current rules. I think a designation along the lines of "AU Intersession Seminar 1" would be appropriate, indicating that the game is affiliated with Apolyton University but not a regular course. Those of us who want to can play it, and those who don't want to are free to ignore it. As long as the game doesn't "use up" one of our ideas for regular AU games, those who skip the game shoudn't feel like they've missing something.

The Chasqui Scout game could be used for that purpose if the people who have already started it have the information needed to post appropriate DARs/AARs. But if it is, I would like to see an alternative version posted using the regular Chasqui Scout unit instead of the modified version. First, I for one am more interested in seeing if I can make the standard version of the unit work for me than I am in trying to come up with a replacement right off the bat. And second, comparing a set of games using the standard version with a set using the modified version could provide a useful additional data point.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The Chasqui Scout game could be used for that purpose if the people who have already started it have the information needed to post appropriate DARs/AARs. But if it is, I would like to see an alternative version posted using the regular Chasqui Scout unit instead of the modified version. First, I for one am more interested in seeing if I can make the standard version of the unit work for me than I am in trying to come up with a replacement right off the bat. And second, comparing a set of games using the standard version with a set using the modified version could provide a useful additional data point.

What difficulty to you want to play at? I can just modify the scenario back to standard-Chasqui rules. Good luck trying to use it effectively...




Dominae

[nbarclay]

I think I'll settle for Emperor. With the right start, I can tackle Demigod (exploiting the GPT bug shamelessly to make up for the inability to make good use of the Forbidden Palace), but I haven't reached a comfort level with it yet. Thanks.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Here you go.

Of course, you'll want to post your comments in the other thread.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Doh.

[Catt]

Like Dominae in his posted Sid game, I am growing increasingly frustrated with the corruption and gpt bugs in epic games -- I usually like to finish almost all my games, but am now quitting after the intial REX and restarting a new game. I don't want to play a Conquest until a patch is out.

But I also just saw a post at CFC that is worth sharing and that may change some people's minds:

Orignally posted by Thunderfall at CFC
Civ3.de's ColdFever emailed Jesse Smith (C3C Producer at Firaxis) about the "big patch" and here is Jesse's reply:

Unfortunately, a patch will not be available by Christmas. Fixes have been implemented, but it is necessary that thorough testing is conducted before releasing the patch. Since we are releasing WorldWide this involves a Firaxis, Atari, & Atari Loc QA test pass and sign off.

Also, there are additional issues that we would like to address in this patch. The hope is to release the patch in mid-January but it is difficult to forecast the exact release date. The date is completely deermined by how the QA process goes.

As more reliable information becomes available we will keep you updated.

Thanks for your patience!

Jesse

Thanks to ColdFever for sharing the info.

I personally haven't changed my mind about launching AU under the present buggy game, but others certainly may and the information should be out there for all to evaluate.

Drat.

Catt

[donZappo]

*sigh* In light of the current news I'm going to throw my non-counting (i.e. non-panel) vote into the "AU Game prior to the patch" pool.

[conmcb25]

Do a game, what the hell, whoever wants to play can.

I did not finish AU204 because Conquests came out and Im waiting for the first Conquests AU course.

Ill play it without a Conquests AU mod.

Humans are social and Civ is a microcosm (sp?) of humanity so lets socialize and play CIV! Together!

[Tassadar500]

Even with the current news I rather we do not have a course under the current situation. I changed my mind after seeing Dominae's game. It's WAY to buggy.

[donZappo]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
Even with the current news I rather we do not have a course under the current situation. I changed my mind after seeing Dominae's game. It's WAY to buggy.

That's a good point. His civilization wasn't too large and it was still getting reemed by corruption. I don't know if a mod could even be created to try to avoid running into massive corruption or GPT problems. I would appreciate it if the AU did something official, though. Maybe a series of ancient era comparison games to go along with a number of the AU threads out there right now? From the sounds of it there are going to be some big changes to some aspects of the game, but hopefully some of the things the AU would learn from comparisons would carry over to the post-patch gaming environment. I believe Dominae presented one such comparison game. That's a good example of what I have in mind when I think of short, ancient era games.

[Dominae]

/me grumbles something about how much testing they did on the "fixed" Corruption before releasing C3C.

Thanks for the news clipping, Catt (how come Firaxis does not post stuff like that here!?).

I now agree that starting an AU course would be counter-productive at this point. It would have made sense a couple of weeks ago (when I posted this poll), but by now everyone is surely aware how annoying Corruption is, not to mention the gpt bug; there's no need to communally go through the motions to prove it to ourselves what we already learned individually.


Dominae

[Harovan]

Oh ****. I have over three weeks of vacation over christmas and wanted a happy conquests playing and now it's ruined. It gets harder and harder to forgive stuff like that, to be honest.

[Jawa Jocky]

The 1st conquest (Mesopotamia) is actually playable under the current conditions. A smaller civ can achieve a Wonder Victory and fight off its neighbors.

On Monarch I was able to build all the Wonders without the assistance/hindrance of a Forbidden Palace. Actually it was way too easy and I've been itching to try again on a harder level.

The Power of Building?